Fun facts on the UK tax code, the longest in the world.
Its complexity is yet anther way in which tax is holding Britain back. A thread:
The UK tax code is over 21,000 pages long and contains over 10 million words.
That's about 12 times the length of the Complete Works of Shakespeare and 12.5 times the number of words in the Bible (800,000 words).
It's 8 times longer than Marcel Proust’s ‘À La Recherche Du Temps Perdu’ which at 1.26 million words has the Guinness World Record for the longest novel ever written.
Proust's novel is a better read.
By contrast the Hong Kong tax code, reckoned to be one of the world's most effective, is a mere 300 pages long.
Of course Hong Kong is now significantly richer than Britain and has better public services.
It is possible to reduce the length of our tax code, but that would require leadership. Chancellor Nigel Lawson scrapped one tax every budget and reduced the number of income tax bands to two.
Since then politicians have blabbed on about simplifying but done the exact opposite
Labour's Gordon Brown trebled the length of the tax code. His successor, George Osborne, called the tax code "one of the most complex and opaque” on earth, and said he would simplify it radically.
In practice the tax code doubled again under his tenure as Chancellor.
Osborne set up a new quango, the Office for Tax Simplification, which failed to simplify taxes but did cost taxpayers over £1m per year.
It even once proposed increasing CGT. Thankfully it was abolished by @KwasiKwarteng
Our current government of course continues to increase the complexity of the code. We have had the new digital services tax and of course the 'making tax digital' requirements.
Better described as 'making tax more tiresome' these introduce horrendous new levels of complexity.
The code's complexity has many negative consequence, not only on investment as well as compliance costs, but also for all those who are hounded by HMRC for misinterpreting the code.
The only meaningful way to simplify the tax code is to scrap whole taxes.
That needs courage and leadership, sadly in short supply across all parties.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Do you trust the Government to decide where your pension funds should be invested?
The Treasury has just said “The government will take a reserve power in the Pension Schemes Bill to set binding asset allocation targets.”
It's a shocking expansion of state power
1/5
If the Government wants to get more pension money invested in British shares it should reverse Gordon Brown's tax grab & restore the pension dividend tax credit. And it should scrap stamp duty on shares.
But then it would have less cash to give to the public sector unions.
Robert Shrimsley says in the FT: "Like many of you, I suspect, I’ve come to the view that Rachel Reeves should oversee more of my financial decisions.
Who wants to see their retirement pot frittered away on cowboy outfits like Nasdaq indices or Nvidia when we could be supporting great British entrepreneurs like Michelle Mone?"
Angela Rayner's tax hike proposals would “seriously risk wrecking savers’ retirement plans” according to Andrew Tully of financial advisers Nucleus.
Punishing savers in order to reward public sector unions is not a morally justifiable policy
1/4
“Savers need confidence that the goalposts won’t constantly shift. Rather than constantly tweaking rules we need cross party consensus on issues like this to deliver the stability required,” Tully said.
“Removing the dividend allowance may drive behavioural changes, including moving into assets that don’t produce a dividend or ensuring investments are appropriately held in wrappers," said Claire Trott, head of advice at St James’s Place.
This week Britain will be hit by a range of horrifying tax increases which will inflict major damage to the finances of British citizens, to businesses & to the economy.
We detail 12 scheduled tax hikes below
1/14
Tax hikes are programmed for April 1 and April 6.
The greatest economic damage will be caused by hikes to Employer NI contributions. The rate will go up by 1.2ppts to 15% & the threshold cut to £5k, dragging many more low-paid & part-time workers into its scope.
The prospect of the hikes destroyed business confidence and has already led to major reductions in hiring & investment, lower pay & some lay-offs.
Now that the tax hikes are actually occurring, the pressure to reduce staff costs and numbers will be much greater.
The OBR budget watchdog downgraded its forecast for capital gains tax revenue for the next 5 years, reducing the projected tax take by £23b
No surprise there, as hikes in CGT invariably lead to reduced revenues. Labour's ideology driven CGT hikes are having the same effect
1/8
Under reforms introduced by Tony Blair’s Government, from the year 2002-03 business assets attracted a reduced rate of 10% CGT if held for more than 2 years. CGT revenues increased sharply as a consequence, doubling in 3 years.
Conversely after the Tories in 1988 increased CGT rates by ten points from 30% to 40%, revenues fell dramatically, more than halving from £2,175m in 1987-88 to £976m in 1990-91 & further still to £606m in 1992-93.
Inventor Sir James Dyson has accused Rachel Reeves of “vindictiveness” saying that her death tax raid on family businesses will “destroy” them & that, rather than raise revenue, it will cost the exchequer billions in other taxes.
He is entirely correct.
1/6
Dyson said that 60 of the top 100 UK taxpayers were owners of family businesses and together pay £3 billion a year in taxes. “Such companies employ 14 million people & contribute many more billions — year in, year out — funding vital public services,” he said.
“This is what Rachel Reeves will kill off with her budget, which introduces a confiscation of 20% of all family companies at every generation, based not on assets (as with farming) but on a much higher figure, a theoretical multiple of future profits".